Problem in the Pro-Life Camp

The problem that I have with the “pro-life” movement in general is that much of it appeals to the woman as being the victim/or merely the accomplice to the crime. Rather, the mother is the transgressor who in the majority of cases, knowingly tested positive in her pregnancy test and nevertheless, storms into the abortion mill with premeditated murder. Whether the sin is done in ignorance or not, she is still morally culpable before God. She is not a victim. To make matters more cumbersome, some in the pro-life movement, such as Dr. Albert Mohler (http://www.albertmohler.com/2016/04/01/the-briefing-04-01-16/), who is considered a stalwart defender of Christianity, says this shocking statement,

But here’s where the pro-life movement returns back to say, who is the guilty party in an abortion? It is the person who brings about the death of the child. The woman seeking the abortion is not without moral responsibility, but she is not herself bringing about the death of the unborn human baby. That’s the crucial issue here, and that’s why the pro-life movement has consistently sought to criminalize abortion at the level of the person performing the abortion. That is, unlike what Nicholas Kristof argues here, a morally consistent argument and it has been consistent over time.”

Really? Can an abortive mother who has malice of forethought be considered a victim and be morally responsible the same time? Morally responsible for what? when they are already deemed a victim. His words now hold no water. This statement from Dr. Mohler violates the law of non-contradiction. With all due respect to Dr. Mohler, there is not a shred of evidence given from Scripture. Simple logic obliterates this mentality. Imagine a young teenager who is desperate for money and convenience’s sake, bullies another teenager named David in school for his money. The bully bruises David and leaves cuts and scars on his face. The next day, the bully endeavors to beat-up David again. However, he is not at school. The bully is desperate and needs money soon. He finds out that David is at home with an illness. Since the bully is unable to drive, he calls some of his friends who lives in the same neighborhood to go into the home of David and rob him. The bully promises to give them movie tickets if they enter David’s home and rob him. Now, is the bully the victim? because he did not act out the crime? Of course, not! Yet, that is the absurdity of the lingo used by many in the pro-life movement when mothers abort their babies.

Here is the question I have for those who think abortive mothers are victims. When is the mother who hires the assassin, become guilty of murder? We have the audacity to label wives and mothers as guilty of murder for hiring a hit-man to murder their husbands and children, but we dare not label mothers who storms into the abortion mill for abortive services as murderers? Really? If that is the case, then the word victim has no meaning at all. We have committed fallacies and undermined biblical anthropology (Romans 3:23). I dare some of the proponents in the pro-life movement who advocate the notion that abortive mothers are victims share that with ardent pro-choice proponents at the abortion mill. It does more harm than good. How so? Take it from Kristina Harrhof:

I asked the pro-aborts in an abortion group the following: “What do you guys think of Cruz and Trump referring to those of you who have aborted as “victims”? Do you agree that that’s appropriate terminology to use for someone who is getting an abortion or who is post-abortive?”

Here were their responses:

— “No. It is not. Abortion is a choice. Not something that is inflicted upon you.” — Laura

— “Neither Trump not Cruz have a clue what they’re talking about. I’m not a victim. I exercised my right to choose and in return [obtained] the freedoms to pursue my American Dream. What they propose is just offensive.” — Susan

— “I emphatically disagree that it is an appropriate usage. It is a dishonest, manipulative, cowardly choice of words.” — Kurt

— “This is a long-standing tactic of theirs [to label us all “victims”]. Because of course women are too stupid to know what they’re doing.” — Evan

— “[Like] We are incapable of sound judgement.” — Cheri

— “Not unless the person was forced into it. Otherwise, they made a choice. If they feel regret, they’re not a victim, but I do feel bad for them.” — Sandra

— “‘Victim’ is only appropriate in a discussion about abortion for someone who is forced to have an abortion.” — Kristen

I then asked Kristen, “Do you think, by and large, that women are being forced to have abortions in the U.S?”

She responded,

— “No, I do not. I believe that most abortions are taking place following a very tough decision that has to be made by the woman who is pregnant. I do not believe that the majority of abortions in the US are forced. Do I believe that some pregnant women are forced to have abortions? Yes I do. Because I know men controlling enough to do things either way. But that is why I do not support the use of the word “victim” to describe just anyone who has an abortion.”
____________________________________________

Folks, even the victims here are denying that they are victims. In fact, they find it offensive terminology. It’s not winning them over; it’s making them feel like we’re calling them “idiots.”

And frankly, as my friend Patte put it in her video, there are some who are supporting the use of this term who should know better theologically.

Paul too committed sins in ignorance with his involvement in the murder of Christians. In his ignorance, he still labeled himself a “blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor” (1 Timothy 1:12-13). He had no excuse for his nefarious sins. Did Paul shy away from biblical labels that could offend or strike a nerve? No! Because he upheld the doctrine of love, he was incited to tell the truth. Father of biblical counselor, Jay Adams has this to say about the significance concerning accuracy in labels:

In order to identify the cause of a problem, we need to decide whether the problem is an error, a wilful sin, or a failure to overcome a pattern. In doing so, we must recognize that if the Bible calls a given practice a “sin,” it is wrong to call it anything else. For instance, to call sin “sickness” or “immaturity,” or to use any of the other psychological or sociological jargon that distorts or disguises its true nature, is to lead yourself and your counselee astray.

Words, the semanticists tell us, are signs of the things they signify. But that’s not all. They are also signposts. Label a sinful action or practice a “sickness,” and you have altered the situation significantly. To call homosexual behavior “sickness” for instance, when the Bible calls it an “abomination” and “something worthy of death” is to point the homosexual in the direction of a physician for the solution to his problem. To call it “sin” is to point him to Jesus Christ. Labels, you see, are signposts, not merely signs; they point in the direction of a solution. Therefore, it is very important to give marriage problems either biblical or biblically derived labels. Other labels tell lies about problems and inevitably point to the wrong solutions.

Per Jay Adams’s words, they almost seem prophetic to this topic (not that he is a prophet). I am afraid, we have circumvented his wise counsel. I pray that Christian leaders divert from their errors and ask Christ for forgiveness. As teachers, we will be responsible before God for every careless word we say. Some words are minuscule in its implications and some are vast in its implication. There is too much at stake. Thousands of babies are murdered everyday. We need to be anchored in Scripture, not in the philosophies of the pro-life movement. At this juncture, I can say, I am pro-life, but I feel uncomfortable being part of the pro-life movement. There is too much toxic perspectives. Now in this milieu, to be pro-life, needs to mean something more than trying to preserve the life of the baby. To be pro-life, is to see the nefarious crime of abortion as murder.

An ardent upholding of the inerrancy, infallibility, and sufficiency of Scripture demands that we be faithful with biblical labels despite the legal and political milieu in society. To go contrary to that is to be inconsistent and arbitrary.

Lastly, a lack of empathy towards preborn babies is due a logical fallacy that appeals to emotions rather to an objective standard. When one appeals to human emotion or political correctness, the victim who is the little image bearer is dehumanized, which inevitably fosters the perpetuation of child sacrifice.

I leave you all with a quote for further meditation concerning this issue:

For the fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, and it is a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.” – John Calvin – Commentary, Exodus 21:22

Like this:

Related

25 Responses

“Thousands of babies are murdered every day” they are the only ones without sin. I have known teenaged girls who were forced to have abortions and I see them as abuse victims. I’ve also seen teenaged girls denied the protective counsel of parents who were coerced into an abortion and see them as abuse victims. Neither are completely innocent of sin but the adults bear the greater culpability. The pro-choice movement damages children. Death is always an evil choice. Both sides are involved in an elaborate game of scape-goating that takes all focus off of the children being destroyed.

Thanks. Yes, abortive mothers can be victims to violence, but she still has the ability to choose life despite the pressures (1 Cor. 10:13). She can call authorities, call a hotline, seek biblical counseling, etc. But if she cowers to the pressures due to the fear of man at the expense of innocent life being snuffed out, then she is not a victim. She can a victim of violence, but she is not a victim of abortion when she still has the ability to choose life (1 Kings 3:16-28). Now if she does not have the ability because she being restrained physically and the abortion is being performed on her against her will, then that is fair use of victimization. Why? because she is helpless and defenseless. Imagine calling a person a victim who chooses to place his hand intentionally into a hot furnace–that is illogical. He is not a victim. He was warned repeatedly not do that, but does it anyway. Now if someone grabs his hand against his wishes and places it into the hot furnace, then he is truly a victim.

Mothers, predominately in the West, who enter into abortion mills choose to murder an innocent life. They know in their conscience that there is life.

I would say both mothers, who go into abortion mills with malice of forethought, and abortionists who are hired as assassins are equally culpable before the eyes of God, if not more.

Again, victims are babies who are truly defenseless. They cry for others to have courage on their behalf.

The culture we have created where women’s bodies are not respected, even by our own selves, and where the life within her is called just a clump of cells, creates the environment where women are simply doing as they have been taught and told. You do not have full moral agency when your moral leadership has failed you.

Is the guy who did not protect her from an unwanted pregnancy also a victim and not fully culpable? Yes, often. He does not perceive his own act as making him a potential accessory to murder. He gave no thought to his own sin, he reinforced her own perception of herself as having no worth and value, he failed to protect her, and he taught her that both women and life itself have no more significance than a clump of cells.

You cannot hold the unborn in high esteem, while condemning their mothers, because the very act of condemning mothers is what has created the conditions that allow mothers to now terminate pregnancies. She simply reflects what she has learned.

WE ARE HUMAN BEINGS WITH MANY FLAWS, CRUSHED SOULS, BROKEN HEARTS, WOUNDED OR DISTURBED MINDS AND SOMETIMES THE VERY BEST AND THE HORRIBLE OF HOMES. WE ARE NOT CIVILIZED ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THE BATTLE OF LIFE AND DEATH FROM ITS TOTAL INCEPTION, SOME DAY PERHAPS, THERE WILL BE NO CHOICE TO EVEN BE CONCERNED, WE WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO SUPPORT THE WOUNDED HEART, TO AID THE BROKEN HEART, TO CORRECT THE DISTURBED MIND AND SO ON, AND NO MORE ABORTIONS!! BUT NOT YET. THUS THE BATTLE CONTINUES AND THE INNOCENT RETURNS TO A LOVING CREATOR-GOD, WHILE WE SO CALLED NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS ALLOW THE NEW TO NOT EVEN BEGIN.

I have been contemplating this post for some time as it got me thinking. I believe that the argument Mohler and other pro-life persons are making here is misunderstood.

First, the quote from Mohler doesn’t actually call the woman a victim. One has to go to the original article to find that language, and it is found in reference to the early pro-life feminist movement as well as in a quote from Ken Blackwell. Of course, Mohler does argue that “The pro-life movement in America has consistently held to this position and has done so over time,” so it would seem to be his position as well.

However, this post does not seem to take into account the context to which that is speaking. Men and women are indeed victims when abortion is presented as the only logical choice or the only option. They are victims when people of specific races are targeted for abortion advertising. But whether one agrees on this or not, it is largely irrelevant to the primary point you’re making in this post. It seems that there are two issues you raise in the post, but they are interlinked: the notion that the woman is a victim in abortion is false, you argue, but that is intrinsically linked to the notion that woman is morally culpable.

You ask, “Can an abortive mother who has malice of forethought be considered a victim and be morally responsible the same time? Morally responsible for what? when they are already deemed a victim.”

It seems to me that there are clear cases where someone who is a victim could still be morally culpable. A child soldier who has been forced into fighting for a cause they don’t believe in is a victim, yet the killing he or she may do is not without moral culpability. We may give a lighter sentence or charge than murder, but that doesn’t mean that this victim is without moral culpability whatsoever. Indeed, I think this is a far better analogy than the one with the bully you utilize above. After all, the analogy with the bully begins with the bully directly beating up someone else! The analogy, then, falls apart at the beginning, because I don’t know of any case (I suppose there could be such a case–but I would be surprised if it were even possible) where a woman performed an abortion on herself.

Now my analogy is to show that the notion of being a victim is not incompatible with the notion of being morally culpable. It does not demonstrate that the woman who seeks an abortion is a victim. Instead, my purpose was to show that the complaint of incompatibility is mistaken.

Thus, it seems to me that the pro-life person who maintains that a woman is, in some sense, morally culpable for the abortion, while also arguing or believing that the woman is, in some sense, a victim in such a situation is not being inconsistent.

You appeal to a question asked in a group of women who had abortions. You asked whether they believed they were victims. I agree that self-definition is vastly important, but I also think it is easy to be mistaken about such things. For example, someone who is working as a prostitute may say that they are not a victim and they did it by choice, but even if they choose such a profession, the fact remains that the act of purchasing another’s body for sexual gratification does, indeed, victimize them whether they acknowledge it or not. I’m not saying that women who have abortions are prostitutes, obviously. My point is that self-defining oneself as “not a victim” does not make it the case.

To sum up: my response has sought to demonstrate two primary points. (1) The notion of someone being a victim does not necessarily undermine the notion of that person being morally culpable; (2) Self definition does not necessarily show us with certainty that someone is not a victim.

I would like to emphasize that these points don’t necessarily reflect my own views. I have, instead, written simply to show that the argument here is not sound.

I am planning on using this response as a blog post at some point in the future. I welcome further interaction and clarification.

Perhaps, I should of added a bit more clarity concerning the isolation of Mohler’s quote, but the quote is in connection to the rest of his article which sympathizes with the historical pro-life movement. A movement that employs human rationalism above Scripture. Not one shred of Scripture was offered by him that supports his or the “pro-life” movement’s position concerning an abortive woman as a victim. The only real and legitimate victim in this scenario is the child. Let us not forget that. A murderer, rapist, and other transgressors are not victims. I think we are using the term victim very loosely and arbitrarily here. We must be specific in light of Scripture. If not, we lose its significance and can lessen the gravity of the matter which has to do with one of the most heinous sins in Scripture, which is child sacrifice. A woman cannot be both a victim or morally responsible at the same time. Either she is a victim or morally responsible (i.e. murderer). Of course in another vernacular, I suppose we can see everyone of us are victims to sin due to Adam’s fall, but that is not the trajectory of where I was heading. I am using “victim” in a more specific and literal fashion concerning a crime against the unborn.

As a result, it would be a logical fallacy (violates the law of non-contradiction and Scripture) to call a murderer a victim. A woman who aborts her child in many of the cases, has the ability to choose life. No one is forcing her (i.e. restraining her at will) to have the abortion. If she was restrained at will, then I would say she is a victim. The affliction and temptation you see in most cases here in the West is no excuse to murder someone (1 Cor. 10:12-13). Hence, since she is not being restrained at will, she is not a victim for aborting her child. I can’t think of any worst crime committed against the “image of God” (Genesis 9:6) than killing your own offspring. No wonder it was considered an abomination when child sacrifice was done.

As for my bully analogy–take it for what it is worth (analogies are not exhaustive), is primarily to point out a moral point. The point is that the bully who hired the neighborhood children is every bit just as guilty of the crime even though absent. Moreover, the child soldier analogy is not profitable nor applicable in this discussion. An abortive mother is not a young child. She is mature of age when entering the abortion mill and has the ability to choose life, unlike child soldiers who don’t and also who lack sound judgment (not that it excuses them [1 Timothy 1:12-13).

I believe the views of the pro-life movement is clear and problematic. According to them, a mother who murders her child can be both morally responsible and be a victim at the same time. At the end just like all sinners, she is without excuse (Rom. 1:31-32; Matt. 15:19). There are no victims in God’s courtroom; especially when there is willful sin. We would never say a sexually immoral and murderers are victims and morally responsible at the same time. Why so with abortive mothers? To argue against that is to marginalize sin and would undermine the Gospel. I am afraid that many are treating abortion as a sacred cow. We must deal with it objectively with love and truth. Too much is at stake and words matter.

If you have time, I would also encourage you to read this article written by my friend that is more exhaustive. He has been ministering at abortion mills for over three years and have seen the outworkings of human depravity.

“A woman cannot be both a victim or morally responsible at the same time. Either she is a victim or morally responsible (i.e. murderer)… I am using ‘victim’ in a more specific and literal fashion concerning a crime against the unborn.

“As a result, it would be a logical fallacy (violates the law of non-contradiction and Scripture) to call a murderer a victim.”

I think the conclusions here are hardly, surprising then. By what you have written above, you are specifically defining victim as “a crime against the unborn” and then concluding, in accord with this definition, that anyone who disagrees is violating non-contradiction. Yet this is hardly to defend the argument put forth in the original post. I could just as easily say: “A woman can be both a victim and morally responsible at the same time. I am using ‘victim’ in the sense that makes this true. Therefore, disagreeing with me is fallacious.”

Yet that is exactly what the response here has argued. I did assert that a woman can be a victim and morally responsible at the same time, but I defended that assertion with arguments. The response to my comment was to simply define my position out of existence and then charge me with violating the law of non-contradiction and Scripture.

Substantively we agree that it is a morally culpable act to seek an abortion. The area of disagreement remains as I outlined it in my original comment, and so far the response is simply to define out of existence any evidence to the contrary.

Reading the article you linked does help clarify things some, and I think it demonstrates how we may be talking past each other. The part of that article which offers definitions sets up the rest of the article, and I think it is vastly important. The sense in which, I think, most pro-life persons are using “victim” is not victim of the abortion procedure itself. It is victim of a system that makes abortion a–to their minds–viable choice. Thus, for you to say they are not the victims of the actual performing of the abortion is in that sense true (though it seems that some psychological studies have shown how this is not necessarily the case–women are also harmed in abortions), but what is being missed is that the sense the general pro-life movement is using, I think, is to refer to the entire system in which abortion is set up as health care and as a true option. That is how women are being made victims of the entire system. Thus, you are asserting that at a certain point, the abortion procedure itself, the woman is not a victim. But that does not undermine the pro-life movement point that the woman is a victim of the entire system.

Just to be clear for those who are reading, abortive mothers are not victims, when they commit abortions. Many who commit abortions in the U.S. have the ability to say no under the pressure of the pro-choice propaganda. In that sense, they cannot be both a victim and morally culpable at the same time.
Either they are a victim or the transgressor when the abortion is committed. Of course that does not mean everything about the pro-life movement is a waste. You don’t throw away the baby out of the bath water. But the movement in general is troublesome. No wonder why there has been a resurgence of Christians engaging in abolitionism.

Hence, if there was ever a law against abortion, I would say that punishment would be the right thing to do. Why? because they are not victims. In contrast, historically, many in the pro-life movement perceived the woman as a victim in the abortion procedure. We can not dismiss that as if it was not addressed in the article. Mohler made that clear in his article. He sympathizes with that point by appealing to the laws and the traditions of men to make his argument. Here is the quote,

“The big background of this story is the fact that the pro-life movement has never, ever called for the criminalization of abortion when it comes to the woman.”

If he thinks they are morally culpable, why rebuttal against Trump when he was advocating for criminalization and punishment of abortive mothers? We can’t be double-minded or be soft because the real victims are the babies. Instead, Mohler appeals to extra-biblical sources. If he and others believe they are morally culpable, why not call for their criminalization? Even an unbeliever who is subjected to general revelation, knows truth.

We criminalize those who murder outside the womb and we punish rapists, etc., but why not abortive mothers? There is inconsistency because we resort to the philosophies of the pro-life movement (of course there are some who do not believe this).

That is my problem with “some” of the pro-life movement ethics that has dominated for the last 40 plus years.

I think it is clear, that Mohler’s article encompassed victimization in the abortion procedure too. He did not denounce that. I will end the conversation here, brother. Blessings.

Thanks for the continued interaction and kind tone of your comments. My purpose in commenting has been to establish that being morally culpable is not incompatible with being a victim. The response has been to effectively say “Yes, it is incompatible” The final response here is a case in point. “Either they are a victim or the transgressor when the abortion is committed.”

I have been arguing all along this is a false dichotomy, and at no point has there been any attempt to refute the argument I’ve put forward. Each response has merely reasserted the initial premise without argument.

Because the purpose of my responses have been limited to the above point, I haven’t made an extended argument for how one might view the woman involved in abortion also as victim. Given the mere reassertion without argument, I believe that on some level my point has carried.

As a final question, I’d ask whether the author of this post, EvangelZ, believes that women are in no way harmed by abortion. That is, does he believe that abortion does not, in fact, lead to increased risk for breast cancer, that it leads to a higher risk of suicide, that it leads to increased risk for depression, that potential for future miscarriages is increased post-abortion, or that other risks (such as the possibility of the death or physical harm to the mother) are not, in fact damaging? The position of this post and the comments following it entail that no harm comes to the mother in any sense. After all, the mother is not–and according to the author–cannot be a victim (repeated claims of logical impossibility entail this). Hence, the woman cannot possibly be harmed by abortion, because that would entail that she is, in some sense, also a victim. Thus, EvangelZ or any who share this position are forced to conclude that abortion in no way causes harm to the mother. I think that is a pill too tough to swallow, because it seems obviously false.

If you don’t wish to publish this comment that’s fine. I know you said the conversation is ended. I’m adding this to the end of my upcoming post anyway if anyone wants to continue the discussion.

Brother, I never said, that abortion does not harm women. My whole argument all along is to demonstrate that in the act of abortion, she is not a victim, but specifically a murderer. My focus was to stay within this trajectory, not beyond it. But if you want to move beyond that (i.e. act of abortion), the best nuanced response I have seen so far that is clear would be from Duub.

The Pro-life camp is so variegated, it is not monolithic and therefore Christians can only align with it to a certain extent, and not wholesale as-is.

For example, generally I don’t think Pro-Lifers go far enough.

Usually, the Pro-life agenda is to simply save babies. While this is a good thing, the greater problem is that murder is an affront to the glory of God. So Pro-lifers can save lives, but still place man in the center of the equation, which is idolatrous. The ultimate motivation to save babies is not the value of the babies, but the glory of God and the Imago Dei.

Regarding victim-hood, I agree that women are not simply victims when abort.

But having said that, I believe that these women can be victims in a certain sense. Not to let them off the hook morally, but in an indirect sense.

As far as the question of whether abortive mothers are victims: My answer would be NO and YES. Let me explain:

• NO the abortive mother is NOT a victim in the sense that Biblically, anyone who causes the death of baby in-womb is guilty of murder (Exodus 21:21-23).
• This is based on the fact that in God’s eyes, human personhood begins in conception. Therefore God sees the death of an unborn child as worthy of life-for-life, tooth-for-tooth.

But I think there is a certain sense where the mother IS a victim, not in a way that frees her from liability, but in the sense that she has been victimized by the lies of the Devil and his wretched world system. Here’s what I mean:

• Often aborting mothers are victims of the devious propaganda in our culture which dehumanizes the unborn, glorifies personal autonomy, and normalizes abortions. (i.e. public health education, Planned P, etc.,)
• Believing these lies causes some women commit abortion in ignorance of the fact that they are committing murder, and in this sense they have been victimized by Satan’s lies.
• In light of that, these women are victims of Satan, the liar and murderer from the beginning, who has been tempting women to sin since the Garden.

Even God acknowledges Eve as a victim of Satan because He holds him accountable for his tempting of Eve (Gen 3:14-15).

Yes, abortive women are committing murders left and right. But I see much of this as a function of being victims of the Deceiver. This does not nullify the sin of their abortions. Because of the lies built into our culture regarding abortion, I don’t believe all women maliciously go to abortion clinics to commit murder – because of the propaganda, they believe it’s a good thing and function of being “responsible.”

But in the midst of the reality that these women are complicit to murder (knowingly or not), I believe that because these women are deceived, our reaction should be twofold:

1.) Biblical Education – where we teach them the true nature of abortion and sin – which is what your preaching at clinics is doing – speaking the truth in love.

2.) Christlike Compassion – Our reaction as Christians be based on compassion and not hatred. Not excusing the sin, but pointing these women to the forgiveness and restoration that can be found only in Christ, who sees sin infinitely more than we ever could, and yet responds with compassion:
“When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.” (Matt 9:36)

Z – Thanks for your continual work for the Gospel, and to save those who are going to destruction, to rescue those who are perishing. We must remember to respond in Gospel love, which is the mark of Christianity.

And our ministries should point to the ultimate sin – not simply the destruction of human beings, but attacking the very person of God.

[…] of women who choose abortions, in the case of them being illegal. That post is entitled, “Problem in the Pro-Life Camp.” At the outset, it is worth revealing my bias in this. I am pro-life myself and I think […]